We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why?. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why?. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

So far, I have not had any need for IS on my Nifty-Fifty. However, any upgrades are ALWAYS welcome, granted they work the way they were intended to do so. The only problems I have with this is;1. 50mm f/1.8 IS, sounds like a replacement for the Nifty-Fifty, NOT the 50mm f/1.4, and2. I agree with most of you on here, Canon will more than likely bump up the price significantly.

Now it is true that the Nifty-Fifty has too few aperture blades-which I don't mind as this has never been a problem for bokeh for me. If the 50mm f/1.8 IS included 7 or 8 blades, an upgrade in construction quality and the IS, then I wouldn't mind dishing out a reasonable amount, however, again, Canon would want $600 and not just the $300 - $400 you can currently purchase the 50mm f/1.4 for.

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why?. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

I was looking at the DXO chart and compare the 'lost light effect" between the APS-C and FF with the same pixel pitch. The APS-C is twice the lost of FF.

We're not talking about vignetting at the edges of an image. We're talking about photosite wells blocking photons arriving at oblique angles, "per photosite vignetting" or shadowing, if you like.

Up until I wrote that post I thought that the cutoff was at f/2, but apparently it's actually f/2.8. That's rather disappointing. It probably changes from camera to camera slightly, depending on the sensor and photosite design (at the very least, it could change or someday be "fixed" in a new design).

I think what Edwin is referring to are these findings from DxO and Luminous Landscapes back in 2010.

Thanks for the website. This is really open up a can of worm. Just playing the devils advocate: If the lost of light is due to the angle of incident of light from the edge of the large aperture, then the crop sensor should be less affected. But the data says the opposite. why?. It will be inteersting for someone to do the same study on a 85 f1.8 and a 50 f1.8 on the same camera.

Sensor size is one factor. Pixel pitch is another. Pixels in the 18 MP APS-C are much smaller than in 21 MP FF. The pixels are treated like tubes or wells. A narrower diameter omits more peripheral light than a wider diameter tube.

Focal length shouldn't make much difference. It is primarily an aperture effect.

I was looking at the DXO chart and compare the 'lost light effect" between the APS-C and FF with the same pixel pitch. The APS-C is twice the lost of FF.

Ok.

Yes I see that. The older APS-C sensors seem to perform worse. Might have to do with sensor design. Better microlenses? Different AA filter? There seems to be a lot of factors that affect the final measurement.

</strong>A purported replacement to the EF 50 f/1.4 was mentioned today in the form of an EF 50 f/1.8 IS. The lens would be smaller than the current 50 f/1.4. There is no imminent announcement of such a lens, but Canon is working to replace the 50 f/1.4 sometime in the next year. The current 50 f/1.8 would remain in the lineup.</p><p><strong>CR’s Take</strong><br />

There’s no doubt in my mind Canon is working on a couple of new 50mm lenses. With IS added to the new 24 & 28mm primes, IS in a 50 shouldn’t surprise anyone. It would be a welcomed lens if they can make it small enough to work well on a mirrorless platform.</p><p>Take this one with a grain of salt….</p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

I am not sure why Canon would build one. The 50mm 1.8 is fast enough and an awesome lens for low light photography. I use it a lot for weddings. No need for IS. I would rather have IS in my 24-70mm L lens. I use it too often for wedding parties and the IS would be awesome for the 24-70mm lens for sure!!!

At the moment I'm about to upgrade to FF with a 5dmkII, one of the main reasons being that my 50mm 1.4 will be easier to handhold, which is sometimes a necessity at weddings when shooting the cake cutting or dancing at the end of the reception. I'll also be adding a 28mm 1.8 for even easier handholding in lowlight.